1 Data
analyses were performed using a computational modeling approa
2 Univariate and multivariate
analyses were performed using a log-rank test and Cox proport
3 controls of genetically determined white-European ancestry;
analyses were performed using a logistic mixed-effects model
4 Adjusted
analyses were performed using a model of baseline risk determ
5 Discovery and replication
analyses were performed using a p-value-based meta-analysis.
6 Analyses were performed using Chi-square, t-test, and logisti
7 All
analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Sof
8 Protein
analyses were performed using conventional and digital ELISA,
9 Survival
analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models
10 Crude and propensity score-corrected
analyses were performed using Cox regression, with additional
11 Regressions
analyses were performed using Cox regression.
12 Uni- and multivariate survival
analyses were performed using Cox-proportional hazards models
13 Meta-
analyses were performed using DerSimonian-Laird random-effect
14 ined using Illumina HiSeq 2500, and differential expression
analyses were performed using DESeq2 (|fold change|>1.5 and f
15 Twenty-one meta-
analyses were performed using effect sizes.
16 Meta-
analyses were performed using effect-size- and p-value-based
17 Genomic
analyses were performed using haplotype sharing analysis and
18 Bioinformatic
analyses were performed using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis, miR
19 alizations was noted in the prasugrel-treated patients when
analyses were performed using instrumental variable methods.
20 ence noted in any of the falsification end-point rates when
analyses were performed using inverse probability of treatmen
21 OS and DFS
analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox pro
22 All
analyses were performed using left eye data.
23 Sample
analyses were performed using liquid chromatography coupled w
24 Risk-adjusted time-trend
analyses were performed using logistic regression, and the th
25 Survival
analyses were performed using models adjusted for traditional
26 Functional gene
analyses were performed using modular repertoires, IPA, Gene
27 Analyses were performed using multilevel patient-clustered mi
28 Comprehensive
analyses were performed using multiple physiological end poin
29 LTL-stratified and medication-stratified survival
analyses were performed using multivariable Cox regression mo
30 Analyses were performed using multivariable generalized estim
31 Statistical
analyses were performed using non-parametric bivariate or mul
32 Statistical
analyses were performed using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis t
33 Downstream
analyses were performed using QIIME, PICRUSt, and LEfSe.
34 Statistical
analyses were performed using R packages.
35 Meta-
analyses were performed using random effect models and standa
36 Meta-
analyses were performed using random effects models with inve
37 Using Seed-based d Mapping software, meta-
analyses were performed using random-effect nonparametric sta
38 Meta-
analyses were performed using random-effects models.
39 Molecular
analyses were performed using RNA sequencing and protein expr
40 Test precision
analyses were performed using samples from 10 subjects.
41 All
analyses were performed using SAS software.
42 Mendelian randomization
analyses were performed using single nucleotide polymorphisms
43 of bias tool was used to assess selected studies, and meta-
analyses were performed using statistical software.
44 The
analyses were performed using summary statistics obtained for
45 Meta-
analyses were performed using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman
46 Univariate and multivariate (MV)
analyses were performed using the Pearson Chi-squared tests a
47 f adverse RV remodeling was similar irrespective of whether
analyses were performed using troponin, D-dimer, or ferritin.
48 Metabolomic
analyses were performed using two-dimensional gas chromatogra
49 Association
analyses were performed using univariable and multivariable s
50 Molecular
analyses were performed using whole-genome sequencing or whol